Add Negative Keywords

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the rest. It does disclose the real-world effect of adding negatives, but is silent on duplicate handling, permission needs, whether validate_only alters behavior meaningfully, and irreversibility. Reasonable but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the workflow hint. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all five parameters are documented in the schema. What remains thin is behavioral edge cases (duplicates, match-type interactions) for a mutation tool with minimal annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for keywords, match_type, or validate_only beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adds campaign-level negative keywords') plus the concrete effect ('preventing ads from showing on those queries'). The word 'negative' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling add_keywords, and the 'campaign-level' scope is explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the upstream workflow explicitly ('the usual follow-up to reviewing get_search_terms_report'), which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a sequence. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., ad-group-level negatives) or naming a conflicting alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.